What's the call in this instance.....

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Why should the offense get the advantage? He/she is not standing there like a beanpole with feet shoulder width apart driving to the basket. Their feet are farther than shoulder width apart and that's normal.

If the defender obtained that spot legally, and is playing good defense: butt down, knees bent, back straight... their feet will almost always naturally be at LEAST shoulder width apart.

Somebody has already pointed out that the width of the feet doesn't matter unless the contact is on the "extended limb". If the contact is elsewhere on the defender, the position of the feet is irrelevant. If a defender is "playing good defense" he's going to be moving to maintain position, and isn't too likely to be in a position to be called for this. Where the defender gets into trouble is when he gets beat because he didn't move quickly enough. In that case, if the offensive player is trying to go by the defender, and the defender's leg is out wide and trips the offensive player, that ain't good defense.

To be honest, the majority of the time I see the width of the feet being an issue is on screens where the screener tries to make himself "bigger".

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Somebody has already pointed out that the width of the feet doesn't matter unless the contact is on the "extended limb". If the contact is elsewhere on the defender, the position of the feet is irrelevant. If a defender is "playing good defense" he's going to be moving to maintain position, and isn't too likely to be in a position to be called for this. Where the defender gets into trouble is when he gets beat because he didn't move quickly enough. In that case, if the offensive player is trying to go by the defender, and the defender's leg is out wide and trips the offensive player, that ain't good defense.

To be honest, the majority of the time I see the width of the feet being an issue is on screens where the screener tries to make himself "bigger".

I agree with most of what you said...and I also believe, as most have said, HTBT. And the defense "usually" is beat.

But the screening rules mention only 2 requirements hands and arms close to body and stationary. I find nothing that says how far the feet can be apart....as long as she is stationary.

One thing I am working on this year is having the screeners set backwards screens. Meaning the screener faces away from her teammate she is screening. It forces A1 to USE A2's screen and keeps A2 from seeing the path of B1 and being tempted to stick out the hip, leg.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

But the screening rules mention only 2 requirements hands and arms close to body and stationary. I find nothing that says how far the feet can be apart....as long as she is stationary.

4-40-2d: "...stance approximately shoulder width apart."

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

4-40-2d: "...stance approximately shoulder width apart."

Originally Posted by CoachP

I agree with most of what you said...and I also believe, as most have said, HTBT. And the defense "usually" is beat.

But the screening rules in my 2003-2004 rule book in my work drawer mention only 2 requirements hands and arms close to body and stationary. I find nothing that says how far the feet can be apart....as long as she is stationary.

One thing I am working on this year is having the screeners set backwards screens. Meaning the screener faces away from her teammate she is screening. It forces A1 to USE A2's screen and keeps A2 from seeing the path of B1 and being tempted to stick out the hip, leg.

Thanks Bob....lemme rephrase.....above red. Anybody seen my crow?